to be improper to be longer vested in the hands of a subject, who exercised those rights independent of, and uncontrolled by, the British parliament. There were many instances to prove that the Lord of Man and the inhabitants were amenable and controllable by the British legislature. One instance only he should mention. In the reign of Henry the Eighth an act of parliament passed for abolishing all monasteries and abbies, and vesting the lands which belonged to them in the crown. In this bill were included those of Man; and the Earl of Derby, so far from exclaiming against the usurpation, or complaining of the injustice or oppression of such a stretch of foreign power, actually became a lessee for them under the king. Much had been said about manerial rights, whereas they appeared to have no real foundation whatever; these rights which had been thus claimed, having at different times, and upon various occasions, been granted to the Lords of Manors, and of course divested out of the Lord-paramount.

The Duke of Athol wished to have every paragraph examined by their Lordships with the minutest attention, being persuaded that the

more pains there were taken to develope the real purport and objects of the bill, the more supporters it would have.*

The bill was finally lost in this House.

In the year 1790 the Duke again petitioned parliament; and General Murray moved for leave to bring in a bill for appointing commissioners to inquire into the extent and value of certain rights, revenues, and possessions in the Isle of Man.

Mr. Dundas supported the bill.

Sir Joseph Mawbey spoke against it.

Mr. Rose said, that the bargain of 1765 had been made in a hurry, that it was an unfair one, and required re-consideration,

The House of Keys petitioned that the bill might not pass into a law, and were heard by Counsel against it.

On the second reading it was opposed by Mr. Law, who denied any precipitancy in the bargain, the English government having had the purchase in contemplation ever since the reign of George the First. He considered 70,000%. and

* Vide Parliamentary Register. Debrett. Vol.iv. 350, 351.

an annuity of 2,000l. on the lives of the Duke and Duchess an ample compensation.

Mr. Curwen said, that in 1787 the Duke promised the House of Keys that he would never introduce any bill respecting the island into parliament without giving them sufficient previous notice, and that of the present bill he had not given them the least. He could prove from authentic documents that the allegations of the noble Duke were utterly unfounded. If any greater compensation ought to be granted, the Duchess Dowager was entitled to receive it. She had been silent upon the subject, and he believed content. He had every reason for supposing that the late Duke was perfectly satisfied with the bargain he had made. What had been already granted, he maintained to be a most ample consideration. If the rights of the Duke had been invaded, he should resort for redress to the laws of the island, and not to the House of Commons.

General Murray defended the noble Duke from breach of promise, and said that the present could not be called a bill immediately affecting the inhabitants of the Isle of Man.

Sir James Johnston spoke in favour of the Duke's claims, but added, that whoever "injured the inhabitants of the Isle of Man ought to be plunged in hell.”

Mr. Fox said there was a variety of allegations that the Duke's family had been injured, but no proof whatever.

Mr. Pitt on the other hand replied, that the committee appointed to inquire into the allegations had thought that there was proof sufficient.

Sir John Miller wished the House joy of what they were going to do. Henceforth they would have business enough upon their hands in remunerating every contractor who had made a bad bargain.

Mr. Henniker maintained that the late Duke held only a life interest in the island, and had no right to sell.

The order of the day for the commitment of the bill being read, Mr. Chancellor Pitt rising, observed, that notwithstanding his full conviction of the propriety and even necessity of proceed ing with such a measure, yet, after the unfavourable impression which had gained ground upon the subject, he should think it in no degree pru

dent to attempt to push the bill further at present, and should therefore move that the bill be committed for that day three months.*

The bill was consequently lost.

In the year 1805 another petition was presented by the Duke to parliament, which, like the former was referred to a committee.

On its being moved that Colonel Stanley do bring up the report of the committee,

Mr. Curwen rose, not to oppose the bringing of it up, but to entreat sufficient time for a full investigation of the subject. The noble Duke had preferred a claim in the present petition, on which till now he had been silent, asserting that by the grant of James I. his ancestor had been invested with absolute royal authority.

A member said, that in the administration of Lord Sidmouth a negative had been put upon the claims of the Duke of Athol, and why should that be reversed?

Mr. Pitt stated that the evidence on which the committee proceeded, was drawn from the able and elaborate report of the commissioners, appointed by his Majesty in 1792 to make inquiry into the present state of the Isle of Man.

* Vide Parliamentary Register.

307, 315, 383, and 561.

Debrett. Vol. xxvii. page